|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 17, 2013 18:07:45 GMT -5
This gets back to whatever a worker says being right! The problem with those limited examples is that they are all responses to government requirements to further their beliefs. If not for the government requirements, they would not have engaged any one of them. For example, if a wartime CO status could have been attained simply by an individual declaration of conscience, then there would never have been any statement by George Walker or name registration. The weak criticism is a bit like this: "well if you go out on faith, then why did you just buy a bus ticket since God is going to get you wherever you are going?" Well, that's true, in theory there should be no need for a bus pass or to put gasoline in the tank of the borrowed car if you are going out totally on faith. This is the same for the outward trappings of the organization. George Walker didn't register a name to formalize the organization, he did it to help the boys who didn't believe in killing people. Similarly, Willis Propp didn't incorporate to formalize the organization, he did it to get a worker into Romania. I would suggest that if Walker or Propp could have avoided either, they would have done none of it because they shun formal organization as a principle. However, they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle. Then they get criticized for being hypocritical. Yet it is no different than the example of Jesus supporting his disciples for plucking corn on the Sabbath, breaking the 4th commandment in favour of the greater 2nd commandment. But of course it is more fun for the legalistic critics to go "aha! caught you, you hypocrites!" "they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle." RE: they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle.Very good points CD and right on target. However, the ranking of the importance of the principles differs among F&Ws. Some F&Ws consider not having a name to be a very high ranking "greater" principle. That is partly why there was an exodus after Geo Walker's letter on Christian Convention stationery turned up in the 1950's. Here what Ralph Derkland had to say about it:I have also in my possession a piece of paper with the ‘Christian Convention’ seal embossed on it. Around the edge it says: Assemblies of Christians, Pacific Coast States, U.S.A In the center in large letters is the word SEAL. Another fair question, for a people who have no church property (if true) no headquarters, not registered as a denomination (herein disproved) then WHAT DO WE NEED WITH AN OFFICIAL SEAL? We also have our own stationary headings. Do you know the workers are ordained? and that they carry ordination papers with them? I have a photostatic copy of two different ones signed by two different ‘head workers’. One told me he carried a card with the word “Clergy” stamped on it and when he went on the train and showed his card and they said, “Clergy, eh?” and how foolish he felt. Next, we have a letter from Neal H. Wherry, Major, UAS chief, Legal and classification Section, Camp Operations. In a query partially quoted here: “Receipt of your letter is here acknowledged as of Nov. 13, 1946 regarding the `Christian Convention’ people or `Assemblies of Christians.’ It is noted that you requested information regarding this organization with specific reference to the question of the expression of any views regarding conscientious objectors. This headquarters has issued a pre-determination that `Christian Convention’ is an RECOGNISED (sic) CHURCH, RELIGIOUS SECT, or a religious organization, within the meaning of Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations. THIS PRE-DETERMINATION was based upon the INFORMATION PROCURED DIRECTLY FROM OFFICIALS OF THE CHURCH; NAMELY GEORGE WALKER (OVERSEER), 2350 Susquehanna Ave. Philadelphia, Pa.” Following is a reasonable facsimile of their letterheads. C H R I S T I A N C O N V E N T I O N S Representing assemblies of Christians Assuming this name only Is this not an admission that we have ASSUMED a name? Is it worse for the Methodists to assume a name than for us to do so? When we have preacher everywhere to everyone we HAVE NO NAME. Can we still claim this to be true? After I began to see these things I decided to write to the one I had professed thru and tell her how I saw thing now, referring to many of the things contained herein and I quote her answer: The rest may be read on TLC Website at: thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:derkland-ralph&catid=3:other-exit-stories&Itemid=5And there is a Ralph Derkland Letter #2 posted there also.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 17, 2013 18:20:59 GMT -5
That's interesting Cherie. Thanks for posting
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 17, 2013 18:28:37 GMT -5
There are no recognitive Christians but Trinitarians. To postulate differently is to deny Christianity's confessions are a sign to the world, either of God's revelation to humankind, or of humankind's response to their Creator. Conciliatory modal recombinant eschatology aside, the burgeoning exciton dynamics attributed to predominantly hyper-minimized corollary seepage becomes the causative -- not to say the abiometric anhydrocephalytic gnosticistic -- plinth. I agree the world is difficult to impossible to interpret with theological certainty. To me Jesus was sensitive to the moral dilemnas that persons encounter over the course of their lives . . . Theologians [workers, whoever] do well up until they present salvation as means of circumlocuting the desparations found in human existence. Jesus understood what lay at stake as he adopted an " ...The only way out is through" kind of attitude, setting a precedent for us and all of humanity to embrace life in the face of adversity, and faithfully increase the spiritual treasure, dividend, or inventory of our species. Back to the Trinitarian thing, either Jesus and the faith concerning him is a sign in this world or it isn't. Maybe he's just one sign of many but he's been a pretty big sign. If God acts directly as a kinetic (like that word? God would to ordain him as the particular sign, from God's POV he wasn't just a man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 18:36:22 GMT -5
The problem with those limited examples is that they are all responses to government requirements to further their beliefs. If not for the government requirements, they would not have engaged any one of them. For example, if a wartime CO status could have been attained simply by an individual declaration of conscience, then there would never have been any statement by George Walker or name registration. The weak criticism is a bit like this: "well if you go out on faith, then why did you just buy a bus ticket since God is going to get you wherever you are going?" Well, that's true, in theory there should be no need for a bus pass or to put gasoline in the tank of the borrowed car if you are going out totally on faith. This is the same for the outward trappings of the organization. George Walker didn't register a name to formalize the organization, he did it to help the boys who didn't believe in killing people. Similarly, Willis Propp didn't incorporate to formalize the organization, he did it to get a worker into Romania. I would suggest that if Walker or Propp could have avoided either, they would have done none of it because they shun formal organization as a principle. However, they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle. Then they get criticized for being hypocritical. Yet it is no different than the example of Jesus supporting his disciples for plucking corn on the Sabbath, breaking the 4th commandment in favour of the greater 2nd commandment. But of course it is more fun for the legalistic critics to go "aha! caught you, you hypocrites!" "they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle." RE: they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle.Very good points CD and right on target. However, the ranking of the importance of the principles differs among F&Ws. Some F&Ws consider not having a name to be a very high ranking "greater" principle. That is partly why there was an exodus after Geo Walker's letter on Christian Convention stationery turned up in the 1950's. Here what Ralph Derkland had to say about it:I have also in my possession a piece of paper with the ‘Christian Convention’ seal embossed on it. Around the edge it says: Assemblies of Christians, Pacific Coast States, U.S.A In the center in large letters is the word SEAL. Another fair question, for a people who have no church property (if true) no headquarters, not registered as a denomination (herein disproved) then WHAT DO WE NEED WITH AN OFFICIAL SEAL? We also have our own stationary headings. Do you know the workers are ordained? and that they carry ordination papers with them? I have a photostatic copy of two different ones signed by two different ‘head workers’. One told me he carried a card with the word “Clergy” stamped on it and when he went on the train and showed his card and they said, “Clergy, eh?” and how foolish he felt. Next, we have a letter from Neal H. Wherry, Major, UAS chief, Legal and classification Section, Camp Operations. In a query partially quoted here: “Receipt of your letter is here acknowledged as of Nov. 13, 1946 regarding the `Christian Convention’ people or `Assemblies of Christians.’ It is noted that you requested information regarding this organization with specific reference to the question of the expression of any views regarding conscientious objectors. This headquarters has issued a pre-determination that `Christian Convention’ is an RECOGNISED (sic) CHURCH, RELIGIOUS SECT, or a religious organization, within the meaning of Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations. THIS PRE-DETERMINATION was based upon the INFORMATION PROCURED DIRECTLY FROM OFFICIALS OF THE CHURCH; NAMELY GEORGE WALKER (OVERSEER), 2350 Susquehanna Ave. Philadelphia, Pa.” Following is a reasonable facsimile of their letterheads. C H R I S T I A N C O N V E N T I O N S Representing assemblies of Christians Assuming this name only Is this not an admission that we have ASSUMED a name? Is it worse for the Methodists to assume a name than for us to do so? When we have preacher everywhere to everyone we HAVE NO NAME. Can we still claim this to be true? After I began to see these things I decided to write to the one I had professed thru and tell her how I saw thing now, referring to many of the things contained herein and I quote her answer: The rest may be read on TLC Website at: thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:derkland-ralph&catid=3:other-exit-stories&Itemid=5And there is a Ralph Derkland Letter #2 posted there also. I would suggest that if explained properly, the vast majority of friends would accept various types of registrations, including various names in countries around the world. Something like: "we are required by the goverment to register a name/corporation in xxxx country in order to spread the gospel by sending the ministry in there.It does not change the fact that we take only the name of Jesus." Or, in order for our boys to be accepted as CO's in this war, the government requires us to register a name but regardless, we still consider ourselves as taking the name of Jesus only." No reasonable person would object to that as long as it is a government requirement. I don't know anything about Mr. Derkland, but by reading his shock and anger in what you have posted, I would say that he found out about the name registration and then would not be consoled by any explanation after the fact. Shock does that to people, along with a feeling of betrayal that he had bought into the "no-name" idea all his life and felt deceived by his worker-idols when he found out there were names. You are quite right, he valued the no-name concept very highly, perhaps to a salvation-level but I doubt that his views would be common. That reaction of Mr. Derkland's was similar to many reactions in Alberta over the incorporation document, yet I would suggest that almost all of the complainants would have accepted the explanation of the incorporation being set up merely to get EL into Romania.....especially if told in advance. The big problem here is dismal communication, not the registrations. At the root of the dismal communications could be simple social dysfunction, arrogance that they don't need to tell people, or fear of disunity when they do .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 18:41:29 GMT -5
Conciliatory modal recombinant eschatology aside, the burgeoning exciton dynamics attributed to predominantly hyper-minimized corollary seepage becomes the causative -- not to say the abiometric anhydrocephalytic gnosticistic -- plinth. I agree the world is difficult to impossible to interpret with theological certainty. To me Jesus was sensitive to the moral dilemnas that persons encounter over the course of their lives . . . Theologians [workers, whoever] do well up until they present salvation as means of circumlocuting the desparations found in human existence. Jesus understood what lay at stake as he adopted an " ...The only way out is through" kind of attitude, setting a precedent for us and all of humanity to embrace life in the face of adversity, and faithfully increase the spiritual treasure, dividend, or inventory of our species. Back to the Trinitarian thing, either Jesus and the faith concerning him is a sign in this world or it isn't. Maybe he's just one sign of many but he's been a pretty big sign. If God acts directly as a kinetic (like that word? God would to ordain him as the particular sign, from God's POV he wasn't just a man. Good to see you agree with what Gene said. We need to communicate like that more on this site!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 18:55:58 GMT -5
I agree the world is difficult to impossible to interpret with theological certainty. To me Jesus was sensitive to the moral dilemnas that persons encounter over the course of their lives . . . Theologians [workers, whoever] do well up until they present salvation as means of circumlocuting the desparations found in human existence. Jesus understood what lay at stake as he adopted an " ...The only way out is through" kind of attitude, setting a precedent for us and all of humanity to embrace life in the face of adversity, and faithfully increase the spiritual treasure, dividend, or inventory of our species. Back to the Trinitarian thing, either Jesus and the faith concerning him is a sign in this world or it isn't. Maybe he's just one sign of many but he's been a pretty big sign. If God acts directly as a kinetic (like that word? God would to ordain him as the particular sign, from God's POV he wasn't just a man. Good to see you agree with what Gene said. We need to communicate like that more on this site! Apparently everyone wants to talk about kinetics and no one wants to talk about palindromic sequences. Am I on the wrong board?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 17, 2013 20:59:09 GMT -5
Now where did I put that darn dictionary...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 18, 2013 10:43:00 GMT -5
One of the great principles by which the movement is run is that there is no formal organization. This isn't a "false impression", it's what the group aspires to do and to be. So how do I explain the workers, head workers, trust accounts, and so on? Like this. There isn't a single principle you could name that is not attended by an element of hypocrisy. That applies to the principles of any group, whether those people are the Boy Scouts, the f&w, the Mennonites, or an entire nation such as the USA or Canada. Using Irvine-speak, one might say that Americans give a "false impression" of living in a free country, because they actually have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and do little for the poor. But please don't tell that to an American, because freedom is a very deeply held value, one which many of them have died to protect. And please don't tell any of the friends that they DO have a formal organization, or much more than a skeleton level of organization, because the friends have a deeply held belief that they don't, and a point of pride is to do as much as possible with a minimum of organizational overhead. As Clearday indicates, no one is trying to create a "false impression" about this. A false impression is created when you believe one thing, and give off that you believe something else. That is simply not the case with the friends and their method of organization. They believe they don't have a formal organization, end of story. The point of reference when discussing the truth is the truth; intention is secondary or irrelevent. No. Cultures govern their action by their intentions. Those intentions have consequences positive and negative. Understanding the intention, the goals and aspirations and motive force, is central to understanding the culture. Generally we don't do that well with cultures we fear or hate, of which grey's book is a good demonstration of demonization at work. Trinitarianism has proved itself a ready apparatus for this work through the ages.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 18, 2013 11:33:26 GMT -5
RE: they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle.Very good points CD and right on target. However, the ranking of the importance of the principles differs among F&Ws. Some F&Ws consider not having a name to be a very high ranking "greater" principle. That is partly why there was an exodus after Geo Walker's letter on Christian Convention stationery turned up in the 1950's. Here what Ralph Derkland had to say about it:I have also in my possession a piece of paper with the ‘Christian Convention’ seal embossed on it. Around the edge it says: Assemblies of Christians, Pacific Coast States, U.S.A In the center in large letters is the word SEAL. Another fair question, for a people who have no church property (if true) no headquarters, not registered as a denomination (herein disproved) then WHAT DO WE NEED WITH AN OFFICIAL SEAL? We also have our own stationary headings. Do you know the workers are ordained? and that they carry ordination papers with them? I have a photostatic copy of two different ones signed by two different ‘head workers’. One told me he carried a card with the word “Clergy” stamped on it and when he went on the train and showed his card and they said, “Clergy, eh?” and how foolish he felt. Next, we have a letter from Neal H. Wherry, Major, UAS chief, Legal and classification Section, Camp Operations. In a query partially quoted here: “Receipt of your letter is here acknowledged as of Nov. 13, 1946 regarding the `Christian Convention’ people or `Assemblies of Christians.’ It is noted that you requested information regarding this organization with specific reference to the question of the expression of any views regarding conscientious objectors. This headquarters has issued a pre-determination that `Christian Convention’ is an RECOGNISED (sic) CHURCH, RELIGIOUS SECT, or a religious organization, within the meaning of Section 622.44 of the Selective Service Regulations. THIS PRE-DETERMINATION was based upon the INFORMATION PROCURED DIRECTLY FROM OFFICIALS OF THE CHURCH; NAMELY GEORGE WALKER (OVERSEER), 2350 Susquehanna Ave. Philadelphia, Pa.” Following is a reasonable facsimile of their letterheads. C H R I S T I A N C O N V E N T I O N S Representing assemblies of Christians Assuming this name only Is this not an admission that we have ASSUMED a name? Is it worse for the Methodists to assume a name than for us to do so? When we have preacher everywhere to everyone we HAVE NO NAME. Can we still claim this to be true? After I began to see these things I decided to write to the one I had professed thru and tell her how I saw thing now, referring to many of the things contained herein and I quote her answer: The rest may be read on TLC Website at: thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:derkland-ralph&catid=3:other-exit-stories&Itemid=5And there is a Ralph Derkland Letter #2 posted there also. I would suggest that if explained properly, the vast majority of friends would accept various types of registrations, including various names in countries around the world. Something like: "we are required by the goverment to register a name/corporation in xxxx country in order to spread the gospel by sending the ministry in there.It does not change the fact that we take only the name of Jesus." Or, in order for our boys to be accepted as CO's in this war, the government requires us to register a name but regardless, we still consider ourselves as taking the name of Jesus only." No reasonable person would object to that as long as it is a government requirement. I don't know anything about Mr. Derkland, but by reading his shock and anger in what you have posted, I would say that he found out about the name registration and then would not be consoled by any explanation after the fact. Shock does that to people, along with a feeling of betrayal that he had bought into the "no-name" idea all his life and felt deceived by his worker-idols when he found out there were names. You are quite right, he valued the no-name concept very highly, perhaps to a salvation-level but I doubt that his views would be common. That reaction of Mr. Derkland's was similar to many reactions in Alberta over the incorporation document, yet I would suggest that almost all of the complainants would have accepted the explanation of the incorporation being set up merely to get EL into Romania.....especially if told in advance. The big problem here is dismal communication, not the registrations. At the root of the dismal communications could be simple social dysfunction, arrogance that they don't need to tell people, or fear of disunity when they do . If the head worker accepts the necessity of registration, then the friends might as well take a name, wouldn't you think? I find myself with Derkland on this. If the deeply held principle is "no organization" and especially, "we don't have a name", then sometimes you have to pay the price for your convictions. It really did not seem like very much provocation was required for the workers to compromise the principles of the group in this case. "No name" is either a deep overriding principle, or it is not a principle at all. It should be overturned only in the most extreme of circumstances. Going into a foreign country, and explaining to everyone there that you have no denominational name, after you just registered under one in order to enter that country, doesn't sound very good to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 14:03:53 GMT -5
The reason given was to ensure that workers would get their residence visas renewed -- and seeing that it was getting difficult (impossible) to get work permits for new workers, it would be possible to get the status of a certain number of staff workers, to enable visas to replace foreign workers that had to leave for different reasons. There is a very high 'turnover' of workers in this country. To me that would have been acceptable -- if it had been done openly -- but it wasn't. Even tho I was apparently on the board and registered as present at the legal meetings neccesary -- I didn't even find out about it until several years later. When I asked my name to be removed .. they eventually choose to disband the organization. Apparently it was Eldon Knudsons idea -- but had its roots in the Alberta incorperation. Any ideas for the reasoning behind the secrecy? My first thought was that they figured some folks, including some workers, wouldn't accept it (because of the formal organization concept) and they feared disunity, since unity is always a big thing. While that is probably the primary reason, they probably justified it as being a ministry-only related subject (bringing workers in and out of the country), so there was no need to inform the friends.....including you apparently. The fact that they put you (possibly others too) on the board without their knowledge is a huge error of judgment. If I recall, some of the workers named on the AB board didn't have a clue what they were signing on to either, but at least they had the opportunity to sign. I am surprised you didn't have to sign anything in Sweden Edgar. After all, that means any organization could make you legally responsible for the actions of a corporation. A corporation does limit some liability such as indebtedness incurred by the corporation, but in most countries, board members may be liable for many things, including the criminal activities of the corporation Eldon is not stupid and fully realized the implications that could be, regarding the moral conflict with 2x2ism claim to moral superiority because of not being a registered religion. Therefore he choose to try and keep the issue somewhat hidden. He probably would have succeeded in this except for the fact that I was upset over our expulsion, and 'dared' to investigate many things that as a member, I had just chosen to live with the official explanations that I had been given from childhood. This also led to me to digging into many other cans of worms that 2x2ism has choosen to hide from view (finances, history etc. etc.). A few years of such investigation has proven to me that the 2x2 system is far more corrupt and built on false assumptions than most other groups. But it seems no one on the inside seems to care a pin.... this indifference shown by the vast majority of friends and workers that I had trusted as having basic concerns for moral correctness -- has been by far the greatest disappointment in my life. I could deal with the issues themselves -- but the complete indifference to truth shown by nearly everyone on the inside at that time made the situation quite impossible for my and my familly.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 18, 2013 14:09:04 GMT -5
Edgar, I can see that would be very hard. It was a bit hard for me to learn about things in the system I didn't know about. Never mind being let down by your friends like you were. That would take some time to get over.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 18, 2013 18:38:20 GMT -5
The point of reference when discussing the truth is the truth; intention is secondary or irrelevant. No. Cultures govern their action by their intentions. Those intentions have consequences positive and negative. Understanding the intention, the goals and aspirations and motive force, is central to understanding the culture. Generally we don't do that well with cultures we fear or hate, of which grey's book is a good demonstration of demonization at work. Trinitarianism has proved itself a ready apparatus for this work through the ages. Some of us believe Jesus profiled a personality that transcends all other cultural concerns. That trinitarianism was advanced through contradictory intentions in not inconsistent with a sovereign God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 22:48:55 GMT -5
I would suggest that if explained properly, the vast majority of friends would accept various types of registrations, including various names in countries around the world. Something like: "we are required by the goverment to register a name/corporation in xxxx country in order to spread the gospel by sending the ministry in there.It does not change the fact that we take only the name of Jesus." Or, in order for our boys to be accepted as CO's in this war, the government requires us to register a name but regardless, we still consider ourselves as taking the name of Jesus only." No reasonable person would object to that as long as it is a government requirement. I don't know anything about Mr. Derkland, but by reading his shock and anger in what you have posted, I would say that he found out about the name registration and then would not be consoled by any explanation after the fact. Shock does that to people, along with a feeling of betrayal that he had bought into the "no-name" idea all his life and felt deceived by his worker-idols when he found out there were names. You are quite right, he valued the no-name concept very highly, perhaps to a salvation-level but I doubt that his views would be common. That reaction of Mr. Derkland's was similar to many reactions in Alberta over the incorporation document, yet I would suggest that almost all of the complainants would have accepted the explanation of the incorporation being set up merely to get EL into Romania.....especially if told in advance. The big problem here is dismal communication, not the registrations. At the root of the dismal communications could be simple social dysfunction, arrogance that they don't need to tell people, or fear of disunity when they do . If the head worker accepts the necessity of registration, then the friends might as well take a name, wouldn't you think? I find myself with Derkland on this. If the deeply held principle is "no organization" and especially, "we don't have a name", then sometimes you have to pay the price for your convictions. It really did not seem like very much provocation was required for the workers to compromise the principles of the group in this case. "No name" is either a deep overriding principle, or it is not a principle at all. It should be overturned only in the most extreme of circumstances. Going into a foreign country, and explaining to everyone there that you have no denominational name, after you just registered under one in order to enter that country, doesn't sound very good to me. Generally, I disagree with this on the basis of the "greater principle" principle. If it is the top principle, then any name is problematic as you suggest. However, the workers have clearly demonstrated that the foreign missions are more important than setting up a name for that specific use. However, in order to be honest, they must disclose the government required names whenever they claim to take no official world wide name, along with an explanation. The truth is, we all occasionally hold our noses and do things we really don't want to do, but go for the greater good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 5:36:59 GMT -5
If the head worker accepts the necessity of registration, then the friends might as well take a name, wouldn't you think? I find myself with Derkland on this. If the deeply held principle is "no organization" and especially, "we don't have a name", then sometimes you have to pay the price for your convictions. It really did not seem like very much provocation was required for the workers to compromise the principles of the group in this case. "No name" is either a deep overriding principle, or it is not a principle at all. It should be overturned only in the most extreme of circumstances. Going into a foreign country, and explaining to everyone there that you have no denominational name, after you just registered under one in order to enter that country, doesn't sound very good to me. Generally, I disagree with this on the basis of the "greater principle" principle. If it is the top principle, then any name is problematic as you suggest. However, the workers have clearly demonstrated that the foreign missions are more important than setting up a name for that specific use. However, in order to be honest, they must disclose the government required names whenever they claim to take no official world wide name, along with an explanation. The truth is, we all occasionally hold our noses and do things we really don't want to do, but go for the greater good. Clearday this is perhaps one of the key aspects of difference between 2x2sim and basic moral principle -- For 2x2ism there is no defining principle -- just leadership policy that can be bent and twisted at will, to suit some personal and fuzzy definition of 'the greater good' To me there isn'st such a thing as 'greater' and 'minor' or 'lesser' principle - Either it is a moral principle or it isn't. If it is adjustable for the situation, it isn't principle it is simply policy -- To be regarded as 'principle' there has to be a basic belief in it as a 'principle' and trust to follow it and believed in it -- even when we may not be able to understand fully where it may lead. This is what faith is all about. I have understood in the recent discussions on this board that 2x2ism doesn't even proffess to abide by 'principle' any longer (only in the cheaper idea of adjustable policy for the situation and moment)-- Not even in such basic things as the value and virtue of truth over deception -- or the basic Christian principle of forgiveness and understanding opposed to the principle of revenge and 'an eye for an eye'!!! or the basic Christian principle of respect for our fellow man, opposed to condemnation of everyone else on the earth but ourselves. The greatest dissapointment in my life was the discovery that the value of simple basic Christian moral principle had vanished from the group that I had been part of from my childhood -- (replaced by adjustable organizational policy and unquestionable group loyalty). Perhaps it never had existed there at all -- and I had just lived with the illusion!!?? Edgar Says alot about 2x2 priorities when the value of truth and honesty is regarded as less important than the issue of registration pappers with the local authorities.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 19, 2013 6:29:19 GMT -5
Getting back to Irvine Grey's book.... There are many incorrect statements in Mr Grey's book as listed on the pages referenced at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement Mr Grey has stated that some factual errors are 'due to typographical errors that were not corrected'. Those errors are not 'typographical errors'; they are fundamental errors in the research and illustrate the sloppy manner in which Mr Grey has not achieved the normal academic standards for a Masters degree thesis. One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices". - The statement isn't restricted by any time or geographic limitations so it is written as if it is universally true. However in many parts of the world workers do attend weddings and speak/pray there so the statement is FALSE.
- Marriages take place within various indoor or outdoor facilities or personal homes around the world, not just Civil Registry Offices, so again the statement is FALSE.
- On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST.
I am not an apologist for all practices and aspects of the fellowship of friends and workers and note the challenging analysis of many issues on TMB. However I find it quite unsatisfactory that such poor quality writing with fundamental errors is passed off as having special merit because of its academic rigour. I consider that the statement discussed above is 'fabrication' which is considered an academic offence at Queen's University Belfast. This is one of many false or dishonest statements in the book, resulting in the book being a travesty, far below the quality of many comments on TMB and far below the research and analysis on various web sites such as that of Cherie Kropp and others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 7:46:21 GMT -5
Generally, I disagree with this on the basis of the "greater principle" principle. If it is the top principle, then any name is problematic as you suggest. However, the workers have clearly demonstrated that the foreign missions are more important than setting up a name for that specific use. However, in order to be honest, they must disclose the government required names whenever they claim to take no official world wide name, along with an explanation. The truth is, we all occasionally hold our noses and do things we really don't want to do, but go for the greater good. Clearday this is perhaps one of the key aspects of difference between 2x2sim and basic moral principle -- For 2x2ism there is no defining principle -- just leadership policy that can be bent and twisted at will, to suit some personal and fuzzy definition of 'the greater good' To me there isn'st such a thing as 'greater' and 'minor' or 'lesser' principle - Either it is a moral principle or it isn't. If it is adjustable for the situation, it isn't principle it is simply policy -- To be regarded as 'principle' there has to be a basic belief in it as a 'principle' and trust to follow it and believed in it -- even when we may not be able to understand fully where it may lead. This is what faith is all about. I have understood in the recent discussions on this board that 2x2ism doesn't even proffess to abide by 'principle' any longer (only in the cheaper idea of adjustable policy for the situation and moment)-- Not even in such basic things as the value and virtue of truth over deception -- or the basic Christian principle of forgiveness and understanding opposed to the principle of revenge and 'an eye for an eye'!!! or the basic Christian principle of respect for our fellow man, opposed to condemnation of everyone else on the earth but ourselves. The greatest dissapointment in my life was the discovery that the value of simple basic Christian moral principle had vanished from the group that I had been part of from my childhood -- (replaced by adjustable organizational policy and unquestionable group loyalty). Perhaps it never had existed there at all -- and I had just lived with the illusion!!?? Edgar Says alot about 2x2 priorities when the value of truth and honesty is regarded as less important than the issue of registration pappers with the local authorities. Let me illustrate the greater/lesser principle idea Edgar so I can explain what I mean. I think you will find that you apply this in life frequently. You are walking down the sidewalk and on the other side of the street, you see an old person who has fallen into a pool of water and is drowning. However, there is no legal street crossing for a couple hundred yards down the street. You believe in two principles: 1.helping people whose lives are in danger and 2. obeying the law of the land. So if you believe in all principles being equal, then you would have to run two hundred yards to a crosswalk, then two hundred yards back. The problem is, the person you set out to help just drowned because you refused to jaywalk illegally. In reality though, you would choose to break the law (against your principles) to save the drowning person because you know that saving a life is a much greater principle than not breaking a jaywalking law. We encounter these dilemmas all the time in life and we usually choose the greater principle. This happens most frequently when people making spending decisions when they are living on a limited budget. If I was in the workers' shoes and cared about the name issue (which I don't....the name issue means nothing to me), I would certainly view the foreign missions as being more important since that was the commandment of Jesus (make disciples of all the world) while the name issue is much more minor since Jesus did not say "do not register a name with authorities no matter what." It is more like the difference between an ordinance and a commandment in which the commandment always takes the most important place. Anyway, I see the failure in the secrecy as failure to communicate these things properly, not in how they did things to get workers into foreign countries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 8:02:01 GMT -5
Clearday, j-walking or not j-walking is not a moral principle to me - It is only my 'personal policy' to respect 'most' of the laws and regulations in our society as far as I reasonably can. -
To me, respect for truth and basic honesty is a fundemental Christian principle! Evidently not in 2x2ism.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2013 8:06:54 GMT -5
No. Cultures govern their action by their intentions. Those intentions have consequences positive and negative. Understanding the intention, the goals and aspirations and motive force, is central to understanding the culture. Generally we don't do that well with cultures we fear or hate, of which grey's book is a good demonstration of demonization at work. Trinitarianism has proved itself a ready apparatus for this work through the ages. Some of us believe Jesus profiled a personality that transcends all other cultural concerns. That trinitarianism was advanced through contradictory intentions in not inconsistent with a sovereign God. I believe Jesus transcended all cultural concerns, at least until the Chalcedonian Creed put him in a box. John Hick, for one, has argued that Trinitarianism makes Christianity into an exclusive religion. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick )
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2013 8:21:05 GMT -5
If the head worker accepts the necessity of registration, then the friends might as well take a name, wouldn't you think? I find myself with Derkland on this. If the deeply held principle is "no organization" and especially, "we don't have a name", then sometimes you have to pay the price for your convictions. It really did not seem like very much provocation was required for the workers to compromise the principles of the group in this case. "No name" is either a deep overriding principle, or it is not a principle at all. It should be overturned only in the most extreme of circumstances. Going into a foreign country, and explaining to everyone there that you have no denominational name, after you just registered under one in order to enter that country, doesn't sound very good to me. Generally, I disagree with this on the basis of the "greater principle" principle. If it is the top principle, then any name is problematic as you suggest. However, the workers have clearly demonstrated that the foreign missions are more important than setting up a name for that specific use. However, in order to be honest, they must disclose the government required names whenever they claim to take no official world wide name, along with an explanation. The truth is, we all occasionally hold our noses and do things we really don't want to do, but go for the greater good. I agree with your last sentence. But formally registering a corporate name is not a mere technicality in the eyes of the law. When this has been done by a head worker, a legal name is established for the church. The church could be sued under that name and all its members held vicariously responsible for sexual abuse, for example. In some respects that might actually be a good thing. But what is not good is that an action that could have a profound impact on several thousand people was taken without their knowledge and possibly against their wishes, even if explained. Of course, I know you already agree that those actions should not have been taken secretly. But the interesting part of the question is this. Would the friends actually consent to such a registration, if explained to them, and if it was openly debated and discussed? I think the "no name" doctrine is an important aspect of a "top principle", which is "minimal or no organization". Many friends want to participate or worship with friends locally for spiritual support and not have any trappings of organization, regardless of whether the workers want to go to a particular country or not. It's not apparent to me that foreign missions outweigh this.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2013 8:31:35 GMT -5
Generally, I disagree with this on the basis of the "greater principle" principle. If it is the top principle, then any name is problematic as you suggest. However, the workers have clearly demonstrated that the foreign missions are more important than setting up a name for that specific use. However, in order to be honest, they must disclose the government required names whenever they claim to take no official world wide name, along with an explanation. The truth is, we all occasionally hold our noses and do things we really don't want to do, but go for the greater good. Clearday this is perhaps one of the key aspects of difference between 2x2sim and basic moral principle -- For 2x2ism there is no defining principle -- just leadership policy that can be bent and twisted at will, to suit some personal and fuzzy definition of 'the greater good' To me there isn'st such a thing as 'greater' and 'minor' or 'lesser' principle - Either it is a moral principle or it isn't. If it is adjustable for the situation, it isn't principle it is simply policy -- To be regarded as 'principle' there has to be a basic belief in it as a 'principle' and trust to follow it and believed in it -- even when we may not be able to understand fully where it may lead. This is what faith is all about. I have understood in the recent discussions on this board that 2x2ism doesn't even proffess to abide by 'principle' any longer (only in the cheaper idea of adjustable policy for the situation and moment)-- Not even in such basic things as the value and virtue of truth over deception -- or the basic Christian principle of forgiveness and understanding opposed to the principle of revenge and 'an eye for an eye'!!! or the basic Christian principle of respect for our fellow man, opposed to condemnation of everyone else on the earth but ourselves. The greatest dissapointment in my life was the discovery that the value of simple basic Christian moral principle had vanished from the group that I had been part of from my childhood -- (replaced by adjustable organizational policy and unquestionable group loyalty). Perhaps it never had existed there at all -- and I had just lived with the illusion!!?? Edgar Says alot about 2x2 priorities when the value of truth and honesty is regarded as less important than the issue of registration pappers with the local authorities. Edgar, this is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you on a f&w issue at a fundamental level. That is, I believe most of the specific examples of church registration I have seen are not warranted by the situation, as far as my understanding of the friends' principles. However, I do believe with Clearday that there are times when principles clash. But I think that this is the exception not the rule. Most of the time, we can live by our principles, but at times we are confronted by a "moral conundrum" where one principle has to override another. For example, most of us would steal food to feed our family, even though that weighs against our basic principles of honesty. The point I'd like to add to the dialogue is that moral conundrums are the exception in governing choices, not the rule. I don't see that having registered the church name in order to obtain CO status was a moral conundrum. Other means of handling the issue could have been explored in that situation. The f&wm really is not a church without a name any longer as a result.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 19, 2013 9:48:16 GMT -5
Are there other NT verses besides this one re "no name"?
Acts 4:10-12: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Does registration of a church name coflict with this verse?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2013 10:51:39 GMT -5
Are there other NT verses besides this one re "no name"? Acts 4:10-12: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Does registration of a church name conflict with this verse?
The only rationale we had ever been provided is that the early Christians had no denominational church name. As you know, there are quite a number of denominations that have no name, or take a very generic name.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 19, 2013 16:22:46 GMT -5
Getting back to Irvine Grey's book.... There are many incorrect statements in Mr Grey's book as listed on the pages referenced at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement Mr Grey has stated that some factual errors are 'due to typographical errors that were not corrected'. Those errors are not 'typographical errors'; they are fundamental errors in the research and illustrate the sloppy manner in which Mr Grey has not achieved the normal academic standards for a Masters degree thesis. One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices". - The statement isn't restricted by any time or geographic limitations so it is written as if it is universally true. However in many parts of the world workers do attend weddings and speak/pray there so the statement is FALSE.
- Marriages take place within various indoor or outdoor facilities or personal homes around the world, not just Civil Registry Offices, so again the statement is FALSE.
- On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST.
I am not an apologist for all practices and aspects of the fellowship of friends and workers and note the challenging analysis of many issues on TMB. However I find it quite unsatisfactory that such poor quality writing with fundamental errors is passed off as having special merit because of its academic rigour. I consider that the statement discussed above is 'fabrication' which is considered an academic offence at Queen's University Belfast. This is one of many false or dishonest statements in the book, resulting in the book being a travesty, far below the quality of many comments on TMB and far below the research and analysis on various web sites such as that of Cherie Kropp and others. Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. Clearly, Mr Grey is rather accomplished in the art of cherry picking and his conclusion is simply the result of confirmation bias.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 17:43:28 GMT -5
Getting back to Irvine Grey's book.... There are many incorrect statements in Mr Grey's book as listed on the pages referenced at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement Mr Grey has stated that some factual errors are 'due to typographical errors that were not corrected'. Those errors are not 'typographical errors'; they are fundamental errors in the research and illustrate the sloppy manner in which Mr Grey has not achieved the normal academic standards for a Masters degree thesis. One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices". - The statement isn't restricted by any time or geographic limitations so it is written as if it is universally true. However in many parts of the world workers do attend weddings and speak/pray there so the statement is FALSE.
- Marriages take place within various indoor or outdoor facilities or personal homes around the world, not just Civil Registry Offices, so again the statement is FALSE.
- On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST.
I am not an apologist for all practices and aspects of the fellowship of friends and workers and note the challenging analysis of many issues on TMB. However I find it quite unsatisfactory that such poor quality writing with fundamental errors is passed off as having special merit because of its academic rigour. I consider that the statement discussed above is 'fabrication' which is considered an academic offence at Queen's University Belfast. This is one of many false or dishonest statements in the book, resulting in the book being a travesty, far below the quality of many comments on TMB and far below the research and analysis on various web sites such as that of Cherie Kropp and others. Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. Clearly, Mr Grey is rather accomplished in the art of cherry picking and his conclusion is simply the result of confirmation bias. As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 18:05:44 GMT -5
As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid. I was thinking the same thing. The workers here will show up, maybe pray, but they won't get deputized to marry the couple, they leave that to the friends.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2013 18:13:46 GMT -5
Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. Clearly, Mr Grey is rather accomplished in the art of cherry picking and his conclusion is simply the result of confirmation bias. As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid. The workers do officiate at weddings in parts of Europe, or at least they used to.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 19, 2013 18:16:21 GMT -5
11 hours ago 2x2history said: Getting back to Irvine Grey's book.... There are many incorrect statements in Mr Grey's book as listed on the pages referenced at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement Mr Grey has stated that some factual errors are 'due to typographical errors that were not corrected'. Those errors are not 'typographical errors'; they are fundamental errors in the research and illustrate the sloppy manner in which Mr Grey has not achieved the normal academic standards for a Masters degree thesis. One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices". The statement isn't restricted by any time or geographic limitations so it is written as if it is universally true. However in many parts of the world workers do attend weddings and speak/pray there so the statement is FALSE. Marriages take place within various indoor or outdoor facilities or personal homes around the world, not just Civil Registry Offices, so again the statement is FALSE. On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST. I am not an apologist for all practices and aspects of the fellowship of friends and workers and note the challenging analysis of many issues on TMB. However I find it quite unsatisfactory that such poor quality writing with fundamental errors is passed off as having special merit because of its academic rigour. I consider that the statement discussed above is 'fabrication' which is considered an academic offence at Queen's University Belfast. This is one of many false or dishonest statements in the book, resulting in the book being a travesty, far below the quality of many comments on TMB and far below the research and analysis on various web sites such as that of Cherie Kropp and others. Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. Clearly, Mr Grey is rather accomplished in the art of cherry picking and his conclusion is simply the result of confirmation bias. As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid. Normally the use of the word 'participate' rather then 'officiate' would be because it has a different meaning. If the same meaning was intended then the same word would have been used. I agree that there are lots of examples of poor word choice and ignorance in the book. I don't make any judgement about intent. Perhaps Mr Grey's only error is that he forgot to say that the book was written and published in Wonderland. "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 20, 2013 2:24:08 GMT -5
Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. Clearly, Mr Grey is rather accomplished in the art of cherry picking and his conclusion is simply the result of confirmation bias. As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid. If it were just a post on an Internet forum then poor word selection could be easily forgiven, however we are referring to an academic thesis here. It needs to be held to a higher standard and it is reasonable to expect that each word has been deliberately selected. The reader shouldn't need to assume anything, either it is deliberate choice of words or it is a sub-standard thesis. Workers are not empowered by law to perform legally binding ceremonies, whether marriages or burials; so from an academic viewpoint, their official involvement in both weddings and funerals is limited to participation. From my personal experiences: Three workers were present at the court house when my wife and I were officially married. The same day, one of those workers, an overseer, "officiated" at an outside ceremony where my wife and I exchanged personal vows we had written for each other. The Master of Ceremonies at our reception dinner was a young worker who was a close friend of my wife's. The third worker present gave thanks for the meal. One of the gifts we received was given by the entire staff of workers. For what it's worth: I can also solemnly declare that no worker has either officiated over or participated in my funeral.
|
|